A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.

Thursday, 31 October 2013

BBC Children in Need's record on pro-life issuesBBC Children in Need is a charity of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to raise money for the support of children, including disabled children. Its main fundraising vehicle is an annual telethon held in November. The BBC Children in Need website reveals that in 2012 and 2013 it made grants to sexual health centres and projects supporting homosexual youth. In SPUC's experience, such centres and projects often support and/or facilitate legal abortion, abortifacient birth control and/or damaging forms of sex education. For example, BBC Children in Need gave £30,803 to the Terrence Higgins Trust, which has endorsed a right to choose abortion, promoted morning-after pills, produced pro-euthanasia advance directives ('living wills') and produced highly-explicit sex education material. [John Smeaton, 12 November 2011] BBC Children In Need has previously given grants to charities funding abortion and family planning services and using research methods that involve destructive embryos - see the entry in the 2006 edition of SPUC's Charities Bulletin.

the dangers of the United Nation's social agenda regarding unborn children and the family

why Muslims should get involved in the pro-life movement

Below is an excerpt of a video-recording of Dr Katme explaining how Henry Kissinger's infamous NSSM200 document is the background to the agenda at the United Nations to try to impose population control on the developing world.

Whilst in Baku, Azerbaijan's capital, Dr Katme also met with Muslim officials and leaders. Although Azerbaijan is an officially non-denominational country, the vast majority of the population is Shia Muslim, with smaller numbers of other Muslims, Christians and other religious believers. Abortion is legal in Azerbaijan in the first trimester of pregnancy.

It is exciting to know that, through Dr Katme and other SPUC representatives, the pro-life message is being spread internationally.

Friday, 25 October 2013

Pro-life victory as European Parliament votes to send pro-abortion report back to committee
In a pro-life victory, the European Parliament has voted to send the pro-abortion Estrela report back to committee. Anti-family lobbyists are complaining about "intense lobbying" by pro-life/pro-family groups, so well done to all those SPUC supporters who lobbied their MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) prior to the vote. (See our action alert of 16 October for what was contained in the Estrela report.) Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, told LifeSiteNews.com: "Today's set-back for the Estrela report shows that the pro-abortion lobby does not have it all its own way, even in the culture of death which is so prevalent in Europe. Forthright and intelligent lobbying by individual pro-lifers and their representative organisations can and does frustrate the designs of powerful anti-life forces. Although the pro-abortion lobby has many times the funding of the pro-life movement, pro-lifers can punch above our weight because we have the truth with us. There is all to play for, and the victory is won in terms of lives saved and families protected." [LifeSiteNews.com, 22 October]

Pro-life campaigners praise Damien Hirst's latest work
SPUC and other pro-life groups have praised the latest work of Damien Hirst, the British artist. The work, entitled "The Miraculous Journey", consists of large bronze depictions of human development from conception through to infancy. It was commissioned by the museums authority in Qatar. Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, told Independent Catholic News: "We congratulate the Qatari authorities on their eye-catching public initiative. It is wonderful that a popular artist has replicated on a large scale the same kind of foetal models which SPUC and other pro-life groups have been using in schools and elsewhere for many decades. Educating the public about the wonderful reality of human development from conception through to birth is a vital means of saving unborn children. We were all unborn children once, so when we look at these models, we see ourselves. We hope that these models will help dissuade women from seeking abortion and will led to improved support for pregnant women, especially in unplanned or crisis pregnancies." [Independent Catholic News, 22 October]

Thursday, 24 October 2013

Archbishop Gerhard Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has written a major article in L'Osservatore Romano on the subject of the pastoral care of Catholics who have divorced and remarried. Among other things, Archbishop Müller said:

“Today’s mentality is largely opposed to the Christian understanding of marriage, with regard to its indissolubility and its openness to children,” said Archbishop Gerhard Müller, writing in the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. “Because many Christians are influenced by this, marriages nowadays are probably invalid more often than they were previously, because there is a lack of desire for marriage in accordance with Catholic teaching, and there is too little socialization within an environment of faith.”

"Archbishop Müller's article gives a lucid, robust and precise account of why the Catholic Church cannot bow to liberal pressures to weaken its discipline regarding marriage. We are particularly grateful to read the archbishop's clear statement linking openness to children to the validity of marriage. As Pope Francis made clear in his first enyclical Lumen Fidei, the life-bearing potential of heterosexuality is a prerequisite of marriage. Abortion, contraception, sterilisation and same-sex relationships are all therefore incompatible with marriage. This message must be made clear to legislators and policy-makers who claim to support marriage but at the same time support practices which are closed to the gift of life."

Wednesday, 23 October 2013

Last week Maaike Rosendal, a Dutch expatriate pro-lifer working in Canada, reported on the trend in Holland of Dutch parents choosing to abort their children diagnosed as disabled and then burying their children dainty little coffins. She writes:

"But it gets worse. A simple internet search shows that most Dutch hospitals, on their websites, accept this as the new normal. Some even recommend induction over suction curettage abortions, as this allows parents a better opportunity to “say farewell to the child” in its final moments. The “a-word” isn’t mentioned once—after all, the only thing that happened was the forced birth of a child who wasn’t able to survive outside the womb yet. Barely an abortion, right?

Wrong! An elective abortion is an action that brings about the death of the embryo or fetus who was previously alive. Call it what you want, but when a woman’s labour is induced to cause birth, while knowing that the child cannot survive that process yet, by its very definition, that is an abortion. When parents with “a preference for fetal death prior to birth” are offered a lethal injection into the fetal heart to give them a more peaceful experience when the child is “still-born,” who are we kidding? That’s an abortion. And when you force your baby to leave the place where she is naturally supposed to be, then watch her struggle to survive with tiny, undeveloped organs to finally succumb to her pre-term birth, don’t speak of a compassionate choice for a child that couldn’t live. It’s no different than saying a child died by drowning when in reality, you pushed him into the canal, knowing he couldn’t swim.

For some reason, this beautifully packaged way of killing imperfect children seems even worse than the decapitation, dismemberment, and disembowelment of similar children in Canada. At least when we see the latter, we recognize it as injustice. But when Dutch gynaecologists describe induced, pre-term birth as the most desirable way to get rid of one’s offspring—because “it causes no harm to the uterus” and “does not require anesthesia”—and counselors describe how meaningful a funeral or cremation can be to symbolize the life of the lost child—never mind that our actions actually killed it—something is utterly wrong."

Maaike Rosendal's blogpost both explains and gives evidence for the same pro-life logic which SPUC has been sharing recently, and which the Catholic Church has taught for well over a hundred years: pre-viability induction is abortion. See:

Tuesday, 22 October 2013

In a pro-life victory, the European Parliament voted today to send the pro-abortion Estrela report back to committee. Anti-family lobbyists are complaining about "intense lobbying" by pro-life/pro-family groups, so well done to all those SPUC supporters who lobbied their MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) prior to today's vote. (See our action alert of 16 October for what was contained in the Estrela report.)

Monday, 21 October 2013

One in four UK students contract sexually-transmitted infection in first year of university
Results of a survey by a student dating website suggest that a quarter of students contract a sexually-transitted infection in their first year at university. The results also suggest that the vast majority of student sexual encounters were conducted without condoms (89%) and whilst drunk. Almost half of those students who had contracted an infection could not remember which sexual partner had infected them. [Huffington Post, 17 October] Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, commented: "This survey and a wealth of similar evidence shows that self-styled 'safe sex' campaigns, promoted heavily by pro-abortion groups, are a total failure in protecting students and instilling responsibility. The people who profit most from this failure are the money-hungry abortion industry, which admits that the single largest group of its customers are women who fell pregnant due to so-called 'contraceptive failure'. Condom- and -pill-pushing simply serves to promote a culture of casual sex which the pro-abortion lobby has helped create through its irresponsible promotion of sexual licence."

SPUC's men at the United Nations, Peter C. Smith and Pat Buckley, have told me that Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, who represents the Holy See (the government of the worldwide Catholic Church) at the United Nations, gave a strong pro-life/pro-family speech to the UN General Assembly on Friday. The whole speech merits reading - see below.

Intervention of Archbishop Francis Chullikatt

Apostolic Nuncio, Permanent Observer of The Holy See to The UN

Third Committee of the 68thGeneral Assembly

Item 65: Promotion and Protection of The Rights of Children

Mr Chairman:

This year’s Secretary General’s Report on the Status of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (A/68/257) helpfully draws attention to child mortality, which goes to the heart of what the Convention in article 6 enshrines as the child’s “right to life, survival and development”. Indeed, without life, all other rights are meaningless. It is a cause for encouragement that his Report concludes that the goal of ending all preventable child deaths is now within our reach.[1]

Among the key factors for achieving this goal the Report identifies maternal health.[2]This is confirmed by the logic of the Convention itself, which affords the child the right to both pre-natal and post-natalhealthcare (article 24(d)). This provision has meaning only if the unborn baby is first afforded the right to life and survival. This accords with my Delegation’s understanding of the Convention’s definition of the term “child”, which article 1 addresses with an explicitterminus ad quemof18 years and aterminus a quoimplicit in the preamble’s clear reference to the child’s rights “before and after birth”.

It follows that each child must be accorded in the first place the right to be born. This is a right, moreover, which must be protected equally – without discrimination on any grounds, including those of sex or disability or policies dictated by eugenics. Thus, pre-natal diagnosis undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether or not the baby will be permitted to be born is inconsistent with the Convention, which my Delegation regards as the fundamental normative instrument on the rights of the child. The unborn baby is a member of our human family and does not belong to a “sub-category of human beings”.

Mr Chairman:

My Delegation takes a holistic view of both health and education, identified by this year’s Secretary General’s Report as fundamental to the State’s obligations. As the Secretary General acknowledged in his previous year’s Report (A/67/225, paragraph 41): health “extends beyond the physical and mental well-being of an individual to the spiritual balance and well-being of the community as a whole”. This includes the duty to take concrete steps to support parents in their proper role of raising their children, so that, as the Declaration of the Rights of the Child asserts, each child may be given “opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him [or her] to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity.”

Mr Chairman:

My Delegation concurs withtheReport of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (A/68/275), that prevention is a key aspect for the protection of children from sale and sexual exploitation.In this regard, the Report devotes significant attention to the indispensable role of the family for the protection of children.Indeed, “The family represents the first layer of a protective environment”.[3]Parents, in the first instance, have the responsibility to secure the conditions of living, necessary for the child’s life, survival and development.[4]

States have the duty to protect, support and strengthen the family for the best interests of the child.This is all the more important – as the Report observes — given that poverty, unemployment, disease, disability and difficulty in accessing social services as a result of discrimination and exclusion may affect the ability of parents to care for their children; and that mental or behavioural disorders, conflicts, substance addiction and domestic violence may weaken the ability of families to provide a harmonious and safe environment and make children more likely to engage in risky behaviours.[5]

Mr Chairman:

While protection of the rights of children begins with full respect for children themselves at all stages in their development, from conception onwards, parents, for their part, possess an indispensable role in their formation and education, and the family is the proper place for their development, as the Secretary General’s Report acknowledges.[6]Defense of the rights of the child requires, as its necessary corollary, defense of the family, for which the societal benefits are obvious: it is the family, not the State, that houses our children, feeds them, instructs them, and raises the next generation of society.

When it comes to the upbringing and education of children, therefore, the provisions of the Convention cannot disregard the specific rights and responsibilities of parents. The Convention perfectly reflects the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in its preamble privileges parents’ “prior right”(article 26.3) in the education of their children – which is to say, a right prior to that of the State or other actors –especially in the important arena of religious liberty which includes human sexuality, marriage and the statute of the family.

With specific regard to “physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development” (article 27, CRC), the Convention (article 18.1) similarly privileges parents with the “primary responsibility” for their children’s upbringing. These rights and responsibilities of parents in international law are the bulwark of their fundamental right to freedom of religion (art. 14, CRC) in regard to which parents are entirely entitled to choose schools “other than those established by the public authorities, [inclusive of home schooling], which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their child [] in conformity with their own convictions” (art.13.3, ICESCR).

Mr Chairman:

In light of the recent output of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, my Delegation would like to address some elements of General Comments 14 and 15. These Comments, my Delegation must point out respectfully, represent only the opinions of the Committee; they do not constitute agreed language and lack all force of judicial precedence. Whatever is contained within them that is not consistent with the normative text of the Convention and other international instruments constitutes a disservice to the best interests of children. Expressions such as “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” (General Comment No. 14 [2013], par. 55, and No. 15 [2013], par. 8)), on which no international juridical consensus exists, are used spuriously and very unfortunately in these Comments. The recommendations, for example, Statessubmit children to education and direction on sexual health, contraception and so-called “safe” abortion (par. 31) without the consent of their parents, caregiver or guardian; abortion be promoted by States as a family planning method (par. 54, 56, 70), and so-called “sexual and reproductive health information or services” be provided by States, irrespective of providers’ conscientious objections (par. 69). Such recommendations are particularly reprehensible.No abortion is ever “safe” because it kills the life of the child and harms the mother.

The Holy See strongly urges the Committee to revise its General Comments in conformity with its guiding international instruments: beginning with the Convention itself, which affirms the right to life of the child, “before as well as after birth” (Preamble, par. 9), the right of conscience[7], and full respect for the rights, responsibilities and duties of parents regarding their children[8]; and including also the explicit affirmation by the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) that abortion should never be promoted as a family planning method (par. 7.24).

Mr Chairman:

My delegation calls upon the international community to uphold the clear principles of one of the most ratified Convention’s in international law, so that they will do their part in promoting openness to the gift and richness of life which the child represents, and thus foster the common good of all persons, the attainment of which remains “the sole reason for the existence of civil authorities”[9].

Tell your MEPs to vote no to pro-abortion report
SPUC is calling on all pro-lifers to contact their MEPs, asking them to vote against a forthcoming report to be debated and voted on in a European Parliament plenary session, either between 18-21 November or 9-12 December. The report is called “Draft Report on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights”. As ever with such reports, there are a few good sections, but the vast majority is deeply harmful and must be rejected: attacks on unborn children, school-aged children, the family, and the right of conscientious objection. [SPUC, 16 October]

Wednesday, 16 October 2013

SPUC is calling on all pro-lifers to contact their MEPs, asking them to vote against a forthcoming report to be debated and voted on in a European Parliament plenary session, either between 18-21 November or 9-12 December.

The report is called “Draft Report on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights”. This report comes from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. The Rapporteur is Edite Estrela MEP.
As ever with such reports, there are a few good sections, but the vast majority is deeply harmful and must be rejected.

Below are some of the very harmful sections that attack unborn children, school-aged children, the family, and the right of conscientious objection.

“G. whereas access to safe abortion is banned, except in very narrow circumstances, in three EU Member States (Ireland, Malta and Poland) and remains widely unavailable, though legal, through the abuse of conscientious objection or overly restrictive interpretations of existing limits”

“10. Recommends that, as a human rights concern, abortion should be made legal, safe, and accessible to all.”

“11. Underlines that even when legal, abortion is often prevented or delayed by obstacles to the access of appropriate services, such as the widespread use of conscientious objection, medically unnecessary waiting periods or biased counselling; stresses that Member States should regulate and monitor the use of conscientious objection so as to ensure that reproductive health care is guaranteed as an individual’s right, while access to lawful services is ensured and appropriate and affordable referrals systems are in place.”

“15. Calls on Member States to ensure compulsory, age-appropriate and gender-sensitive sexuality and relationship education for all children and adolescents (both in and out of school).”

European Dignity Watch has written an article with some background information about this report if you would like to know more.

Also, here are some arguments for you to use when writing to your MEPs about the report.

Abortion is the killing of innocent unborn children between conception and birth. No UN convention or EU treaty recognises killing unborn children as a human right. Britain, despite its liberal abortion law, does not recognise abortion as a human right. At a minimum the EU Commission states that it has no competence in this area, leaving it to EU Member States to decide on the issue of abortion. This position is also seen in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, although court decisions have been used to pressurise countries like Ireland and Poland into legalising and liberalising abortion. As such it is deceptive and totalitarian to include human rights language concerning abortion in an EU parliament report. Various UN conventions recognise that the child has a right to life before and after birth. All people are created equal and all have the inherent right to life. EU Member State Malta recognises and protects the right to life from conception, so that all abortions are prohibited. Malta also has one of the best maternal health records in the world.

Conscientious objection is a basic human right, as seen in UN conventions, the Nuremberg principles, the EU Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and resolutions of the Council of Europe. It is an important right, especially for medical professionals. It’s ironic how the pro-abortion lobby want to invent new human rights yet restrict and curtain legitimate human rights like conscientious objection. Attacking conscientious objection under the guise of monitoring and regulation will simply mean doctors and nurses being forced to perform and participate in abortions directly or via delegation, or face losing their jobs. This can be seen in the ongoing SPUC legal case concerning the two Glasgow midwives.

Compulsory sex education is a favourite hobby horse of the pro-abortion brigade. Arguments that compulsory sex education educates children and lowers the rate of teen pregnancy have proved groundless; in fact the opposition is the case. In practice sex education sexualises children, exposes them to sexually explicit material and deviant sexual practices, and primes them for sex, backed up by easily available contraception and abortion referral, under the cover of confidentiality so that parents don’t find out. SPUC has long since campaigned to protect children and the rights of parents via the Safe at School campaign.

Please remember to forward any replies you receive from MEPs to SPUC's political department, either by email to political@spuc.org.uk or by post to SPUC HQ.

Tuesday, 15 October 2013

Abortion is not a compassionate response to fatal disability says SPUC Northern Ireland
Abortion is not a compassionate response to cases of fatal disability in unborn children, says SPUC in Northern Ireland. SPUC Northern Ireland was responding to the case of 'Sarah', a woman who contacted the BBC to say that the law on abortion in Northern Ireland had forced her to travel to England to abort a child diagnosed with anencephaly. Liam Gibson, SPUC Northern Ireland's development officer, commented: "Abortion is not a compassionate response to the diagnosis of fatal disability. Babies with fatal disabilities are no less human than other children and share the same right to life as all other human beings. [SPUC, 9 October]

Wednesday, 9 October 2013

SPUC Northern Ireland has responded to the case of 'Sarah', a woman who contacted the BBC to say that the law on abortion in Northern Ireland had forced her to travel to England to abort a child diagnosed with anencephaly

Liam Gibson, SPUC Northern Ireland's development officer, commented:

"Abortion is not a compassionate response to the diagnosis of fatal disability. Babies with fatal disabilities are no less human than other children and share the same right to life as all other human beings. The law in Northern Ireland respects that right, while the British Abortion Act has led to the situation where it is lawful to kill a disabled child up to birth.

Some people may believe that an abortion in case of fatal disability helps women carrying such babies but in fact this is not true. The evidence demonstrates that women who abort their babies for such reasons experience serious psychological suffering. One study in the Netherlands found that, four months after their abortions, 46 per cent of women showed pathological levels of post-traumatic stress disorder.

The tragic nature of this case highlights the desperate need for perinatal hospice care in Northern Ireland. Women with access to perinatal hospice care have a much better prospect of coming to terms with their grief. A perinatal hospice gives parents of babies with a fatal diagnosis the chance to be parents. To hold their child, care for them and share whatever time they have no matter how short. Those experiences help parents cope with their grief in a way that is simply impossible with abortion.

Last year MLAs were given the opportunity to hear about the benefits of perinatal hospice care from Dr Bryon Calhoun, a world class expert in this field. It is time that the health department looked at ways to provide greater support and care for women and their unborn babies in these difficult and tragic circumstances."

Cliona Johnson, an Irish woman, has recounted movingly her experience of choosing to give birth to an ancephalic child in this YouTube video.

SPUC criticises new reason for non-prosecution of sex-selective abortion
SPUC has criticised the new reason put forward today for the non-prosecution of sex-selective abortion. SPUC was responding to the statement issued by Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for England & Wales. Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, commented: "Keir Starmer, the DPP, has now contradicted the earlier announcement by Jenny Hopkins of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which said that the decision not to prosecute was reached on the basis of the CPS public interest test. Now the DPP has said that it is essentially for lack of evidence that they are not going to proceed with any prosecution. The issue has clearly embarrassed the prosecuting authority. That embarrassment arises ultimately because the Department of Health under successive Secretaries of State not only refuses to ensure that doctors implement the grounds in the Abortion Act - providing abortions only when the grounds are met - but actually encourages doctors to offer abortion to any woman who says she wants one." [SPUC, 7 October]
Related stories:

Blind Dutch woman granted euthanasia
A blind Dutch woman has been granted her request for euthanasia in The Netherlands. The Daily Mail newspaper reported that: "Medics have killed a woman by lethal injection because she could not cope with becoming blind. In one of the first cases of euthanasia for a disability, the 70-year-old was deemed by doctors to be ‘suffering unbearably’. Anthony Ozimic of SPUC told the Mail: "It is medical negligence of a high order for the doctors in this case to have gone along with her suicidal ideas, rather than find effective means of managing whatever psychological issues may have been causing her to consider suicide. The Netherlands is a wealthy country which can support people with blindness. Wherever euthanasia or assisted suicide has been allowed, so-called 'exceptional circumstances' are quickly becoming the norm and the criteria for death are expanding. Millions of people around the world are blind, yet these doctors in their callous arrogance have deemed that at least some blind people should be killed rather than treated. This is what is in store for the UK if Lord Falconer and Margo Macdonald get their bills through parliament." [Mail, 8 October]

Hans Kung, renowned dissident theologian, considering suicide for Parkinson’s [LifeSiteNews.com, 3 October] Anthony Ozimic of SPUC commented: "It is one of the tragedies of modern Church history that Hans Kung did not become a great defender of life as his fellow peritusat the Second Vatican Council, Joseph Ratzinger. Unlike Kung, Ratzinger saw that the Western cultural revolution which started in the late 1960s was an anarchic rebellion against the principles which safeguard civilisation. Voluntary self-destruction is also a form of rebellion against such principles. However, it is not too late for Kung to see the light of the Gospel of Life, as the testimony of many repentant former abortionists will attest."

John Smeaton

About Me

I became involved in SPUC after graduating, when I established a branch in south London in 1974. I have worked full-time for SPUC for 39 years. I became chief executive of SPUC in the UK in 1996, having been general secretary since 1978. I was elected vice-president of International Right to Life Federation in 2005. At UN conferences in Cairo, Copenhagen, Beijing, Istanbul and Rome, I helped coordinate more than 150 pro-life/pro-family groups resulting in pro-life victories in Cairo, Istanbul and Rome. I was educated at Salesian College, London, before going to Oxford where I graduated in English Language and Literature. I qualified as a teacher, becoming head of English at a secondary school. I am married to Josephine. We have a grown-up family and we live in north London.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to SPUC's staff, supporters and advisers for their help to me in researching, writing and producing this blog.

Sign up for email alerts

Twitter @spucprolife

Images

I believe that I am allowed to use the images accompanying my blog and that they are licence- and royalty-free. However if the owner or the licensor disagrees, please contact me and I will remove it immediately.